Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/16/09 09:28 PM, Brick-top wrote: I never said it increases or decreases sensitivity. I merely asked a question. And I'm awaiting the answer.

My point is it's impossible to have a scientific answer unless someone is willing to experience both.

At 1/16/09 11:06 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 1/16/09 09:28 PM, Brick-top wrote: I never said it increases or decreases sensitivity. I merely asked a question. And I'm awaiting the answer.

My point is it's impossible to have a scientific answer unless someone is willing to experience both.

Couldn't we just monitor brainwaves as different men masturbate?

At 1/16/09 11:06 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 1/16/09 09:28 PM, Brick-top wrote: I never said it increases or decreases sensitivity. I merely asked a question. And I'm awaiting the answer.

My point is it's impossible to have a scientific answer unless someone is willing to experience both.

So basically this statement below has no strength?

"reported that 'circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm.'"

You've just said it's impossible.

At 1/16/09 11:09 PM, BetaOrionis wrote: Couldn't we just monitor brainwaves as different men masturbate?

Sensitivity and pleasure are subjective. You could show the same fifty men a single explicit image and their responses would be different. There's no way to scientifically prove it one way or the other. Also, masturbation is not a good test of sensitivity to touch because it's a closed loop - arousal, stimulation, climax are all controlled by the man. Every man's tolerance before climax is different, every man's technique is different.

At 1/16/09 11:11 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Sensitivity and pleasure are subjective. You could show the same fifty men a single explicit image and their responses would be different. There's no way to scientifically prove it one way or the other. Also, masturbation is not a good test of sensitivity to touch because it's a closed loop - arousal, stimulation, climax are all controlled by the man. Every man's tolerance before climax is different, every man's technique is different.

So the method of knowing is impossible due to subjectivity, then how did they find out men had more sensetivity when it's (acording to you) impossible AND subjective?

At 1/16/09 11:09 PM, Brick-top wrote: You've just said it's impossible.

Impossible to PROVE that circumcised or uncircumcised men experience more sensation. You'll note that in the statement the author reports that in the study the circumcised men reported increased sensitivity. Since much of sexual pleasure is psychological, it is significant if a group reports something even if it's not scientifically provable (or even not true). Your experiences are what's real to you, and if circumcised men report greater sensation than uncircumcised men do, there must be some cause.

All I have to say is that I am glad that I don't remember my circumsision.

here's ANOTHER great suggestion: how about we tattoo every kid!
It's great, you won't remember it, it doesn't change you and girls love it. You look cooler. Everyone will love the baby tats.

Girls should get a free tramp stamp. Maybe their name in chinese with angel wings on the side ( parent's choice ). I think that if parents can choose to cut off bits of your weiner, they can pick a tramp stamp for their daughters.

I have such great ideas.

At 1/17/09 12:04 AM, poxpower wrote: here's ANOTHER great suggestion: how about we tattoo every kid!

Good idea, but only if the children are tattooed according to which political party their parents support. If your parents are democrats, then you get a little donkey tattoo. If they're communists, then you get a sickle and hammer etc.

I am against it because with a circumcision masturbation and sex are painful and unattractive.

At 1/17/09 01:43 PM, camobch0 wrote: with a circumcision masturbation and sex are painful and unattractive.

Sounds like that could be why they do it in the first place.

I've been with a number of circumcised men, and not a single one of them had painful masturbation or intercourse as a result of his circumcision. Let's not muddy the argument with untruths.

I am a circumcised male & I have never had painful sexual relations....um I have never experienced pain because of being circumcised when having sex. Masterbation isn't painful either...but then again I don't take "beat your meat" literally either !

I also support foot binding, and head wrapping. [Cone heads rule]

Well I'm glad they did it then either way. It would hurt if they did it now, foreskin looks icky, and the mushroom is funner to play with.

At 1/17/09 03:49 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I also support foot binding, and head wrapping. [Cone heads rule]

"Cone head"

Do you mean klansman?

I think he's referring to cranial shaping, which was common practice among a number of tribes in North and South America and in some parts of Africa. It is still practiced among some Peruvian populations. Unlike foot binding, cranial shaping does not harm the ability of the person to function normally - the brain is not harmed when the skull is reshaped.

At 1/17/09 03:58 PM, EKublai wrote: Well I'm glad they did it then either way. It would hurt if they did it now, foreskin looks icky, and the mushroom is funner to play with.

the foreskin doesn't prevent mushroom play.

s

At 1/16/09 11:14 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: circumcised men report greater sensation than uncircumcised men do, there must be some cause.

Impossible to PROVE that circumcised or uncircumcised men experience more sensation.

circumcised men report greater sensation than uncircumcised men do.

How do they know? It's unprovable so therefor means nothing. Also you've said it's subjective which lowers the strength of this article even further.

Also:
While one study suggests that there is no sensitivity difference, circumcision removes the thousands of nerves, including the frenulum, which is the most sensitive part of the male body. Also, without the protection of the foreskin, the glans kernatises over the years to protect from abrasion, burying nerves under up to 10 layers of lightly callused skin. The foreskin's gliding mechanism during intercourse is lost upon circumcision.

At 1/17/09 07:49 PM, Brick-top wrote: Impossible to PROVE that circumcised or uncircumcised men experience more sensation.

So basically we've just invalidated one entire element of the argument against circumcision, which is that it deadens sexual pleasure. Which was my point to begin with, posting the dissenting study information. I personally don't give a flying fuck one way or the other, but if there's no conclusive evidence to support the less-sensation argument, it should be discounted from the discussion, because clearly we cannot prove it.

At 1/17/09 07:53 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

it should be discounted from the discussion, because clearly we cannot prove it.

and so a new counter-argument was born.

At 1/17/09 07:53 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 1/17/09 07:49 PM, Brick-top wrote: Impossible to PROVE that circumcised or uncircumcised men experience more sensation.

So basically we've just invalidated one entire element of the argument against circumcision

That was your quote I forgot to italic it.

And I'm not against circumcision however my link shows it does very little which doesn't justify having it.

because clearly we cannot prove it.

Agreed.

Fortunately..although it may reduce pleasure. You can restore your foreskin by foreskin restoration.

You tug your skin and it regrows. Even the ancient greeks helped aid jews in this. They even sell devices.

They also got a forum of people who restored and are restoring at

foreskinrestoration.net

what most of you guys dont get is, that they put the babies out before they cut, they wont just cut away at his dick with him awake.

also, i assume most of you haven't experienced circumcision, at least that we remember, so how can you asume the baby is "crying like hell," and that they dont put the him asleep first?

At 1/24/09 03:52 PM, Murtag182 wrote: what most of you guys dont get is, that they put the babies out before they cut, they wont just cut away at his dick with him awake.

irrelevant; the issue is not about suffering, but whether or not it is right to allow someone to decide if an unnecessary body modification is to be made on an individual who has no ability to make a decision.

How many of you inconsistent hypocrites are pro-choice and anti-infant circumcision?

At 1/24/09 07:24 PM, n64kid wrote: How many of you inconsistent hypocrites are pro-choice and anti-infant circumcision?

I don't know, how many of you are advocating infant circumcision only during the first trimester?

Alternatively, how many people are, in general, pro-life and pro-circumcision?

At 1/24/09 07:24 PM, n64kid wrote: How many of you inconsistent hypocrites are pro-choice and anti-infant circumcision?

thats like asking how many of you inconsistent hypocrites are pro-death penalty and anti - toture.

but anyways , my reasoning is that the aborted fetus, isnt going to live with the circumcision.
but since the infant is (presumaly) going to live well into adulthood, he should have the choice of weather or not he wants to keep his foreskin.

also, its preety retarded that many pro-life people are also, anti-gay , im pretty sure that as the amount of gay people goes up the less abortions theres going to be.

At 1/24/09 07:41 PM, Elfer wrote: Alternatively, how many people are, in general, pro-life and pro-circumcision?

;;;;;;;
I'm pro choice (which can often be prolife...we're not killing all the babies) as well as procircumcission.
I'd like to see a movement to getting rid of the 'hoodie' & get everyone into 'turtlenecks' :-)

At 1/24/09 07:41 PM, Elfer wrote:
Alternatively, how many people are, in general, pro-life and pro-circumcision?

Or anti-circumcision but pro vaccine?